Freedom of Religion?

[Samuel Dravis]

Actually, it is in the Danish constitution (and in the draft of the Iraqi constitution as well). But nevermind, because protection from discrimination certainly is, and if the only reason that the person is fired is that his religion is incompatible with his job, then you might argue that it's discriminatory.

 

But I'll provide a less clear-cut example (and one that has actually gone all the way to the Danish Supreme Court twice - with two different rulings):

Ah, I see. Thanks for the info.

 

The only reason he'd be fired from his job is because he's unable to complete it. If he's unable to do the job, what sane company would keep him on? I agree with you that it is arguable though.

 

Are employers allowed to demand that their employees don't wear veils, if wearing veils is a requirements of their religious doctrines?

If it is dangerous to wear them (being by machines with moving parts etc) it should be able to be a requirement; indeed it would be irresponsible of them not to make it so. However, if it's just to enforce uniformity in the workplace, no. That would be discrimination for no good reason whatsoever.

[ShadowTemplar]

But why would this only be discriminatory when used against religious symbols? If the employers wanted to wear a badge saying "Vote [insert politician/party]", would it then also be 'discrimination for no good reason'? And if they wanted to wear veils because they were afraid of catching cold, or didn't want to wear makeup because they were afraid of getting allergies (AFAIK the stewardess' union filed charges about that a few years back and were laughed out of the court and ridiculed in most major newspapers).

[Samuel Dravis]

People are used to strange religious requirements (and accept them), but for excuses like those you mention they would be laughed at.

 

If the employers wanted to actually force their employees to wear such a badge, I think they'd be sued into the ground. The ACLU (or whatever your equivalent is) would come after them as well. Such a requirement would not look good in court, let me tell you.

[ShadowTemplar]

OK, so you say that religion is exempt from the right of the employer to impose a dress code on his employees, but political parties are not?

 

What if an orthodox Pastafarian wanted to dress up in full pirates regalia, as per Pastafarian religious requirement?

 

What if the Muslim who insisted that she be allowed to wear a veil was a member of the Hizb Al Tahrir? Would the veil then be a religious (and hence sacrosanct - you should pardon the expression) or a political (and hence free for all) piece of clothing?

 

BTW: Not wanting to catch allergies or colds would seem to me to be rather more legitimate reasons for not following dress codes than some silly religious taboo.

[toms]

Well in all this I tend to err on the side of common sense. IT shouldn't be the job of government to legislate every possible occurrance of any little event... it should be their job to keep society in motion in as fair as a way as possible.

 

If a religious person wants to take a job then they need to consider whether it fits in with their religion... in the same way that if I take a job I consider whether it fits in with my lifestyle. The employer shouldn't be able to make up rules simply with the purpose of discriminating. That covers 99% of all situations.

 

In the 1% of other situations that have complex conflicting rights then its usually a case of someone being awkward or out to make a point, but then that is what the courts are there to make a determination on.

 

Basically one's religin becomes like one's race or hair colour or anything else... its a personal issue that is a part of your life, and its a personal choice for you how you integrate it into the rest of your life. As long as no one intentionally puts obstacles in your way, or you don't intentionally force your religion on others, then everyone should stay out of it.

[Samuel Dravis]

Whoop, sorry Shadow, didn't notice your post.

 

Well in all this I tend to err on the side of common sense. IT shouldn't be the job of government to legislate every possible occurrance of any little event... it should be their job to keep society in motion in as fair as a way as possible.

 

If a religious person wants to take a job then they need to consider whether it fits in with their religion... in the same way that if I take a job I consider whether it fits in with my lifestyle. The employer shouldn't be able to make up rules simply with the purpose of discriminating. That covers 99% of all situations.

 

In the 1% of other situations that have complex conflicting rights then its usually a case of someone being awkward or out to make a point, but then that is what the courts are there to make a determination on.

x2. That's what the courts are for.

[Lathain Valtiel]

I think the more interesting question is why the "fundies" and those that would argue for the right periodically disappear. The best among them are always temporary. Rcarr, Wilhuf, et al rarely stay and stick to a point. They're outnumbered by the regulars here, but still, one would expect a few of these guys to defend their claims and positions.

 

I wasn't mentioned? What happened? I'd like to think I have a degree of sympathy for the right, regardless of their religious tendencies. I can also state by the way that it is certainly not #2, at least not in my case.

 

(This is despite the fact I think I'm technically agnostic, but... Heh. Bashing organized religion makes me mad though, even if it's, er, 'subtle'.)

 

On the topic...

 

Honestly, what's the point? I'm failing miserably to see the point of this, er, 'debate' if it doesn't affect you in some noticable fashion.

 

I would hope common sense dictates that if your religion prevents you from participating in your job or presents a risk in doing it, you should simply not take the job/accept the possibility of getting fired, or in the case of risk, sign some waiver that exempts the employer from responsibility if said practice can result in injury. Toms is basically right here in my opinion. But then again this is almost a pure opinion-based debate with no factual underpinnings short of putting the debate into focus. But I digress. Yay to boredom.

[ShadowTemplar]

If a religious person wants to take a job then they need to consider whether it fits in with their religion... in the same way that if I take a job I consider whether it fits in with my lifestyle. The employer shouldn't be able to make up rules simply with the purpose of discriminating. That covers 99% of all situations.

 

But what constitutes "simply for the purpose of discriminating"? How can you ever determine whether a new rule is an attempt to bar certain religious groups from applying for the job, whether it's a rule that simply deals with something that's never happened before and which the employer hadn't thought about making rules for before or is simply the first time it's been required to put an unwritten rule into writing because an employee made an unreasonable demand?

 

I provided a couple of examples above. Do any of them have commonsense solutions? If so, let's take a vote on what 'common sense' says. If not, do you think that they belong in court, or are sufficiently important to be governed by a legislative principle?

 

Lastly, I seriously doubt that you could come up with a single rule that has the effect of discriminating people solely based on their religion - in every case I've heard about the rule simply restricted whether they were allowed to practice their religion at work, something that has nothing whatsoever to do with their subscription to the religion in question and everything to do with the relationship between their piety and their professionalism. And, frankly, isn't it legitimate to not want to employ people who have more piety than professionalism?

 

In the 1% of other situations that have complex conflicting rights then its usually a case of someone being awkward or out to make a point, but then that is what the courts are there to make a determination on.

 

Which is all well and good in the absense of laws to cover a particular subject, because that usually means that you need a one-time-only arbitration after which laws are made to cover it. But when laws have been made to cover the subject in question, they should be made consistent. Otherwise you are systematically moving legislative power to the courts - a place where, in my humble opinion, it has to business whatsoever being.

 

Basically one's religin becomes like one's race or hair colour or anything else... its a personal issue that is a part of your life, and its a personal choice for you how you integrate it into the rest of your life. As long as no one intentionally puts obstacles in your way, or you don't intentionally force your religion on others, then everyone should stay out of it.

 

Religion - unlike gender, hair/skin/eye colour, etc - is something you choose. That simple fact makes it fundamentally different from the other things you mention. There is a world of difference between discriminating people because of a religion that they decided to subscribe to and discriminating people because they happened to have parents of the 'wrong' colour.

 

That said, however, religion - like political orientation - is very much protected by the inviolability of privacy, the right of free press and speech and a couple of other civil liberties. The question at debate is whether citizens should be allowed to practice religion in situations that aren't covered by those civil liberties.

 

Honestly, what's the point? I'm failing miserably to see the point of this, er, 'debate' if it doesn't affect you in some noticable fashion.

 

The point - well my point at least - is to highlight the fact that in many civilised countries the citizenry has a misguided sympathy for people who violate code of conduct under cover of religious practice. Essentially, the message I want to send is that every time you see somebody practice his religion, you should ask yourself: "Would I be offended if he was wearing a 'Vote [insert politician or political party here]' badge in this situation?" and every time somebody requests or demands preferential treatment based on his desire to practice his religion, you should ask youself "Would I be offended if a member of [insert political party here] demanded special concessions because he wanted to use this situation to distribute political propaganda?"

 

Of course, the analogy isn't perfect: There are a great many places and situations where political propaganda is OK, but where religion absolutely does not belong (parliaments and political collumns/shows/articles spring to mind in particular). But it would be a start, since there are absolutely no places (short of temples) I can think of where religion belongs but political propaganda doesn't.